You keep trying to harp on penalty claims, when over and over again I point out that penalty claims are not the exclusive means for losing funds in LN. Ergo, irrelevant.
The whole thing was in response to your question, which was lost somewhere along the way:
But tell me - why is it assumed that there were penalty claims?
So I told you.
(meaningless ego-based banter snipped out)
For the record, I'm ambivalent on the matter. I don't know, (and I don't much care) whether or not the described event occurred as described (although I know it to be possible within the design of LN, which may or may not give the passerby pause). But I am not willing to propagate hearsay as fact -- something which you are demonstrably altogether happy to do.
I can't make you understand that hearsay is only bad when applied to court room trials. Without doing that, almost every single news article that contains a rephrasing of another's words could be considered "hearsay."
If you are interested in the actual findings, here's where things
currently stand:
guggero 4:39 PM
Hi. I did write the tool to figure out what's going on with your channels.
This is what it looks from the file (listchannels-guggero.txt from Oct. 23):
- Channels still open (funding-TX not spent): 115 (101342555 sats)
- Channels that were closed (funding-TX spent): 295
- Funds in outputs that belong to your node: 268829394 sats
- Of those funds, 139479289 sats are in normal on-chain outputs that should be salvageable just with the seed.
So I guess there's still around 3.7 BTC that should in theory be claimable.
In an
earlier post, he determined that he only had 3.73452874 BTC missing after the dust settled...
3.7345 - 3.7 = 0.0345 still missing, if not accounted for by
1 - rounding done by guggero
2 - penalty transactions
3 - "unjust enrichment"
So basically, the entire thing actually was FUD, even if unintentional on the part of the guy who "lost" his coins. Basically my hunch was correct, and yours wasn't. You can point to whatever you consider to be a logical inconsistency in previous iterations of the argument but it doesn't change the outcome of me being right.